Live Cash Games

roryc

I had a very successful night last night at the 50euro pot limit holdem game at the Fitz, and decided to go back again tonight to try and repeat my success. Needless to say, I may need some more experience!

Over the space of four hours I managed to play..... 2 HANDS!!!! I was literally as card dead as you could be. In 4 hours the highest card dealt to me was a Jack. I started on 80euro and was blinded down to 25 before I picked up anything worth playing. I trebled up on JJ (only pocket pair all night) and was back up to about 80 again.

Unfortunately those Jacks were to be the best hand by far and I was again blinded down and forced to push my last 15euro on pocket sevens. I lost...

Anyway, I'm just wondering how to play in this situation? I have basically no experience in live cash games and usually just sit tight until I get a decent hand and then push. This has worked for me in the past as players seem to be MUCH looser at cash tables. It was doing my head in tonight because I KNOW if I had any hands I would have gotten action. There was 3 students at the table who had monster stacks in front of them, which were slowly being robbed by the more experienced players at the table. I was dying to get in there! It was doing my head in constantly looking down at 35, 27, 28 etc.

I thought that maybe if I played looser and limped in more I might catch and get paid off but I literally couldn't hit anything. Should I have just cashed in my chips and left? I'm so used to tournament play where you stay till your chips are gone! I think I need a lot more experience of cash games I didn't have a clue in there tonight. I didn't know whether I was playing too tight or whether my cards really were terrible. I literally only played 2 hands past the flop in 4 HOURS!

I took two breaks to calm myself down and stop going on tilt, but I was fcuking steaming driving home. What do you do in these situations? Cash in and go home or start playing wild?

ocallagh

if you're not used to cash... ur approach is fine... u need cards tho.. after a bit of experience playing the cash games u can start messing around with hands such as 64o which Oscar has down to a tee..

if JJ is the best u saw all night u got ul.. thought i told you to take a break!:)

I personally hate cash games, esp pot limit in the fitz.. Too many 'value callers'.... I never know where I stand.. I think I just suck at cash games TBH..

Doc Farrell

U still havent bought Zen and the Art of Poker have you Rory?

sometimes you just dont get a hand and when you do sometimes it just doesnt hold up. Thats just the way it is.

see you at the freerolls!
des

roryc

Hey Doc can you get me a copy of that book? I havent had the time to look for it yet

youcantseeme

You must of been on major tilt if you had to go on 2breaks. If anything starts getting to you i think it time to step up and go home. Think of it this way you can always go back 2moro when you'll be more relaxed.

willis

In the same boat as yourself rory with regards cash games,played in fitz 4 times and only made profit once. Firstly i recommend u sit down with more thn 80. Secondly when u were down to €30 you should buy more chips...could u have won a bigger pot with the JJ if u had a bigger stack? U definitely need to adjust your starting hand requirements in cash games,especially if u have position. Ive felt like a fish everytime ive played cash in th fitz so ive spent the last month playing .25/.50 cash games on PPP and hope to be back playing cash in the fitz after xmas as the experience online is invaluable

roryc

Yeh I only brought in 80 euro as I didn't want to lose any more than that! I probably should have just walked away after two hours. I think I had the right kind of starting hands. Any pair, any good blackjack hand and any suited connectors, as well as the odd random hand. But I literally only saw a pair of jacks, sevens and twos in the space of four hours. I think I had one hand with suited connectors. After three hours I had lowered myself to playing any picture card (I never saw anything higher than a Jack), any connectors, fcuking anything! I was playing **** like 10 7 just to play a hand.... Fcuk it I should have just left

cardshark202

If you only sit down with 80 you should expect to lose unless you get lucky.

roryc

Why???
There wasn't many people at the table with more than that. I started with 50 the night before and worked it up to 250. I could understand if I was sitting down with a small amount but the average at the table was about 70-100

cardshark202

Hmm well you only have a few rounds before you're forced to get involved due to your stack. I would never buy in for less than 200 so I can play looser and get paid off fully on my big hands. When you start with 200 you can sit on it if you want and wait for a hand.
I would say the minimum buy-in for a serious cash game player should be 150 or so. You have to give yourself a chance.

Marq

youcantseeme wrote:

You must of been on major tilt if you had to go on 2breaks. If anything starts getting to you i think it time to step up and go home. Think of it this way you can always go back 2moro when you'll be more relaxed.

2 breaks in four hours? Exactly how does this indicate "major tilt"? when I play cash games I take frequent breaks whether I am winning or losing, frustrated or calm; because if you don't take breaks it's very easy to lose concentration.

If you only sit down with 80 you should expect to lose unless you get lucky.

this is an idiotic statement. You shouldn't expect to lose if you sit down with 80 euro. You should, however, expect that as you have a very small amount in relation to the blinds for a pot-limit cash game, you will be unable (certainly at first) to capitalise on certain oppurtunities that may present themselves to you.

for example, rory, you mention in your post the three students with large stacks at your table, and also that at one point you only had 25 euro in front of you. Your post seems to suggest that you thought yourself to be better than these players, and that if you had a decent oppurtunity, you would be able to take money from them. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a decent oppurtunity did arise (for instance, you have the nut straight and all three of these players have the second nut straight and are keen to get all of their money in the centre), if you only have 25 euro, you win a 25 from each of them, a total of 75, whereas if you have as much money as they do (or at least two or three hundred, which is usually the average stack in this game), you stand to make an awful lot of money from the same situation.

You also are at a disadvantage because with a small stack, you will often be all-in by the flop or the turn, removing benefits that you would reap by exercising your self-perceived skill advantage on the later streets. Also, say you flop top two pair on a dangerous drawing boards and don't have enough money to make a big enough bet or raise to deny your opponents the odds to call on draws, you are more likely to be outdrawn, and then we all have to listen to you moan about another bad beat. A larger stack is nearly always more advantageous in a cash game.

I think that you should also consider that you are not adequately bankrolled for this cash game. Your post suggests that you are playing with scared money - if you were prepared to buy in for 200 and then another 200 or 400 if you lost that, your attitude towards the game would not be one of fear, but one of positive expectation. I'm not saying you would have a positive expectation, but a change in attitude would help you a great deal. I have always thought that a bankroll of between five and ten thousand would be perfect for this particular cash game and that buying in for between 200-500 each time you play is optimum, although if you can buy in to cover the table, you should do that. It is an awful place to start if you are not used to playing cash games. Learn on the internet, or in the smaller cash game on saturday afternoons.

From your post, and other things including your general attitude to poker, I personally don't think that you should be playing this particular game at all.

You would do well to take this advice on board. I'm being critical, but I hope in a constructive way, and I guarantee you that you would benefit by taking heed of some of the above.

cardshark202

Marq wrote:

this is an idiotic statement. You shouldn't expect to lose if you sit down with 80 euro. You should, however, expect that as you have a very small amount in relation to the blinds for a pot-limit cash game, you will be unable (certainly at first) to capitalise on certain oppurtunities that may present themselves to you.

I may have been a little harsh in the statement but what I meant was that buying in for such a small amount leaves you no room to manoeuvre in terms of hand selection. You end up having to take a stand with AQ or KJ or something preflop and hope for the best. Basically your chances of having a winning session are dramatically reduced imo.

henbane

Marq wrote:

your self-perceived skill advantage

Zing!

roryc

Marq wrote:

for example, rory, you mention in your post the three students with large stacks at your table, and also that at one point you only had 25 euro in front of you. Your post seems to suggest that you thought yourself to be better than these players, and that if you had a decent oppurtunity, you would be able to take money from them. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a decent oppurtunity did arise (for instance, you have the nut straight and all three of these players have the second nut straight and are keen to get all of their money in the centre), if you only have 25 euro, you win a 25 from each of them, a total of 75, whereas if you have as much money as they do (or at least two or three hundred, which is usually the average stack in this game), you stand to make an awful lot of money from the same situation.

I know this is what was doing my head in. When I sat down two of them had over 150 and one of them had almost 300. The lad with three hundred ended up losing it all one hand against the nut straight. I think he had an overpair! When I left there was only one of them left, and he didn't have much cash left...

Marq wrote:

You also are at a disadvantage because with a small stack, you will often be all-in by the flop or the turn, removing benefits that you would reap by exercising your self-perceived skill advantage on the later streets. Also, say you flop top two pair on a dangerous drawing boards and don't have enough money to make a big enough bet or raise to deny your opponents the odds to call on draws, you are more likely to be outdrawn, and then we all have to listen to you moan about another bad beat. A larger stack is nearly always more advantageous in a cash game.

Yeh this makes sense. The only reason I brought in 80 was because it was only a chunk of the profit I had made the previous night, and I didn't really want to lose any more than that.

Marq wrote:

I think that you should also consider that you are not adequately bankrolled for this cash game. Your post suggests that you are playing with scared money - if you were prepared to buy in for 200 and then another 200 or 400 if you lost that, your attitude towards the game would not be one of fear, but one of positive expectation. I'm not saying you would have a positive expectation, but a change in attitude would help you a great deal. I have always thought that a bankroll of between five and ten thousand would be perfect for this particular cash game and that buying in for between 200-500 each time you play is optimum, although if you can buy in to cover the table, you should do that. It is an awful place to start if you are not used to playing cash games. Learn on the internet, or in the smaller cash game on saturday afternoons.

5 and then thousand... right I've got a few hundred in my bank account. Probably not enough.... I have been learning on the internet but I think its a totally different ball game. Also I didn't know there was a smaller cash game on Saturday afternoons! What time and what are the blinds?

Marq wrote:

From your post, and other things including your general attitude to poker, I personally don't think that you should be playing this particular game at all.

You would do well to take this advice on board. I'm being critical, but I hope in a constructive way, and I guarantee you that you would benefit by taking heed of some of the above.

Yeh I was only playing it because I thought it was the only one out there. I start a new job next week with good pay so I'll have a bit more spare cash to spend (lose!). I could afford to bring 2 or 3 hundred down to that game but i would prefer to maybe learn the ropes at a smaller game. I don't think the internet will help!

Also of course I'll take any advice on board! I wouldn't post up here if I wasn't looking for advice! Be as critical as you like, I don't take any criticism I recieve here to heart!

PS: love the beard

Marq

I may have been a little harsh in the statement but what I meant was that buying in for such a small amount leaves you no room to manoeuvre in terms of hand selection. You end up having to take a stand with AQ or KJ or something preflop and hope for the best. Basically your chances of having a winning session are dramatically reduced imo.

Yes, as you may have noticed from the above post and not simply the lines directly below the bit where I quote you, I know that. The point is, in more general terms, that you shouldn't have to "make a stand" as you say, and you certainly don't "have to"...Treating a cash game like a tournament is asking for trouble, and this seems to be Rory's problem.

Rory, the game on saturday usually starts around half five. Blinds are .50/.50, and the buy-in is capped at 25 euro (or if you have lost money, as much as you have already lost). It is a hold'em/omaha round of each game.

The only reason I brought in 80 was because it was only a chunk of the profit I had made the previous night, and I didn't really want to lose any more than that.

Indeed.

roryc

Yeh I agree, I'm so used to playing tournament poker that it may take a while to adjust to live cash games

stephenoleary

New job Rory? Fairplay.... newspaper job?

Crumbs

whodini wrote:

newspaper job?

"I had 98% of the papers delivered when I got knocked off my bike by a frickin' helicopter. A helicopter!! What are the bloody odds?????"

cardshark202

Marq wrote:

Yes, as you may have noticed from the above post and not simply the lines directly below the bit where I quote you, I know that. The point is, in more general terms, that you shouldn't have to "make a stand" as you say, and you certainly don't "have to"...Treating a cash game like a tournament is asking for trouble, and this seems to be Rory's problem.

Rory, the game on saturday usually starts around half five. Blinds are .50/.50, and the buy-in is capped at 25 euro (or if you have lost money, as much as you have already lost). It is a hold'em/omaha round of each game.

Actually the game has changed to a 50 max buyin 25 min. Blinds still .50/.50 though. You should definately only treat this game as a bit of fun and a learning experience. From my experience I don't believe its really a consistantly winnable game.

kinaldo

Crumbs wrote:

"I had 98% of the papers delivered when I got knocked off my bike by a frickin' helicopter. A helicopter!! What are the bloody odds?????"

lol

roryc

sort of, its a media company

BigDragon

The only bigger waste-o-space-loafer types than feckin students are feckin media types

roryc

heehee, ive gone from one to the other!

Culchie

Crumbs wrote:

"I had 98% of the papers delivered when I got knocked off my bike by a frickin' helicopter. A helicopter!! What are the bloody odds?????"

lol ..funny guy

Marq

cardshark202 wrote:

From my experience I don't believe its really a consistantly winnable game.

My records show that it is my second most profitable cash game as far as return on investment is concerned. Very low standard. Easily beatable.

cardshark202

Really? Well it may be beatable but I think rake makes this game unprofitable. I still play it sometimes though. Its a good laugh and I suppose if you take it seriously enough it is winnable. Talk about a contradictory post:o .

roryc

I don't agree with everything

ionapaul

I'm a contrary old bastid...I don't agree with anything

Doc Farrell

roryc wrote:

Hey Doc can you get me a copy of that book? I havent had the time to look for it yet

Hodges Figgis will have 6 copies of Zen and the Art of (losing money while playing) Poker in about 10 days. They have to come in from the US.

highly recommended.

roryc

cheers D

Marq

The phrase "a beatable game" implies that the game is profitable despite the rake.

Rnger

the 25 game is a good laugh. go in for the 4.30 freeroll and then hit the cash game. a nice lazy saturday at the fitz. ill never forget walking away with almost 200 after buying in only once. 4 queens in the omaha brag brag brag

RMcG

If you cant beat the holdem cash games in the fitz then you are a ****ing retard and dont deserve to be alive, all your organs should be donated to charity and if you dont play the organ then your guitars. Im off to bed now......:D

roryc

I'll just go die then......... I beat it before though......

fuzzbox

First, buying in for 80 is actually quite short for a game with blinds of 1/2.

Online, that game would have a buy-in of 200.

Does that mean you should be loose? No, but it means that you should be more aggressive with your A-big hand. And you should like to steal blinds some (almost impossible in that game).

Your 80 wont scare anybody, so you need to hit the best hand very often, and as you get blinded down (by limping in with trash, and then most likely calling the inevitable raise to 5 or 10, and then check/folding the flop), you are even less scary, and ppl will look you up with most anything.

Best way is to buy in properly - 150+ seems good, and then you have some ammunition to fire (and also you get to be able to make some money on your good hands).

However - when you are card dead ... then you are card dead, and thats the way of things.

fuzzbox

roryc wrote:

Yeh I only brought in 80 euro as I didn't want to lose any more than that! I probably should have just walked away after two hours. I think I had the right kind of starting hands. Any pair, any good blackjack hand and any suited connectors, as well as the odd random hand. But I literally only saw a pair of jacks, sevens and twos in the space of four hours. I think I had one hand with suited connectors. After three hours I had lowered myself to playing any picture card (I never saw anything higher than a Jack), any connectors, fcuking anything! I was playing **** like 10 7 just to play a hand.... Fcuk it I should have just left

When you have 80 or less in a 1/2 game, Low suited connectors should be mucked preflop.

RoundTower

roryc wrote:

After three hours I had lowered myself to playing any picture card (I never saw anything higher than a Jack), any connectors, fcuking anything! I was playing **** like 10 7 just to play a hand

Yeah definitely it was a run of bad luck you were going through online, or maybe the online sites are rigged.

Spiritus

roryc

Yeh, great point, because that was ALWAYS my motto. Everything is rigged, I have horrible luck, and the world is out to get me. Hit the nail on the head there Roundtower....

fuzzbox wrote:

First, buying in for 80 is actually quite short for a game with blinds of 1/2.

Yes that would probably be right online, but from my experience in the fitz most people buy in for 50-100. Next time I go I'm gonna bring in 150, start off with 100, and have 50 'back-up'.

fuzzbox wrote:

However - when you are card dead ... then you are card dead, and thats the way of things.

Exactly, I wasn't posting to moan, merely to ask what would you do in that situation. Would you have left if you hadn't got ANYTHING in the first hour or two? Just cut your losses and leave? I'm starting to think this is probably what I should have done.

fuzzbox

roryc wrote:

Yes that would probably be right online, but from my experience in the fitz most people buy in for 50-100. Next time I go I'm gonna bring in 150, start off with 100, and have 50 'back-up'.

Those who buy-in for 50 usually get beat pretty quick. Apart from the ones who double up ... and then you would like to take all their money in one go, when they play A7o for all their chips on an AT4 board. Thus, more is more.

150 total is probably not enough either. Sometimes the flushes get there. Sometimes they have bigger flushes than you, sometimes you get unlucky.

If you plan to buy in for 100, then bring 300.

roryc wrote:

Exactly, I wasn't posting to moan, merely to ask what would you do in that situation. Would you have left if you hadn't got ANYTHING in the first hour or two? Just cut your losses and leave? I'm starting to think this is probably what I should have done.

Naaa, Im far too stubborn to leave even when Im card dead and KNOW I should leave ... I hang on in there hoping to finally give it to the man.

padraig_f

roryc wrote:

In 4 hours the highest card dealt to me was a Jack.

Assuming 25 hands per hour, I work out the odds of this happening as
(10/13)^200 = 1/(1.6 * 10^23), or about 160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. If you have a session that's 53,000,000,000,000,000 times less likely than being struck by lightning [1], I think the general advice is to quit poker.


[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/lightning_strike.shtml

Doc Farrell

can't argue with the numbers man....

roryc

Fcuk that makes me feel a bit sick. Those numbers cant be right can they? Im scared to leave my house now.......